The Instigator
joshpleco23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Korashk
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Circulation of Snuff Films

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,684 times Debate No: 11952
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

joshpleco23

Pro

Hello! I am Joshua Pleco!
This will be a simple, casual, debate. I wish that my opponent shows love toward me, and I shall give love back. My argument is that the circulation of snuff films is, and should be perfectly legal.

A snuff film is a motion picture depicting the actual death or murder of an individual. There are many stories about snuff films being traded in the criminal world. I've heard from a friend that such trades are popular in Europe, however I have never heard of it when I lived in the old country.

It is hypocritical to make a snuff films illegal, we often see much more violent motion pictures when we watch a cheap slasher flick. The only reason snuff films have such shock value, is because the people killed in the film are real.

Before my opponent arises from the soggy hills of middle earth to pound me with the subject, I would like to clarify something. I do not support the making of Snuff Films... Murder is bad, don't do it.
Korashk

Con

Snuff�films�should�be�illigal/not�circulated�not�because�of�their�content.�I�agree�with�my�opponent�that�there�are�fictional�depictions�of�things�that�are�much�worse.

My�opposition�to�their�distribuion�is�the�fact�that�those�being�killed�in�these�films�are�not�able�to�give�consent�for�the�film's�release.�Since�they�are�being�killed�in�them.�From�what�I�understand�it�is unlawful�to�publish�media,�especially�media�that�generates�revenue,�without�those�that�are�depicted's�consent.�While�it�may�not�be�criminal�it�is�not�unknown�for�a�person�to�file�a�civil�injunction�agains�another�for�releasing�media�without�consent.

My�opponent�may�try�and�argue�that�the�person�may�give�consent�for�the�video�to�be�released�before�the�actual�filming�of�the�film�occurs.�This�is�not�legally�valid�consent�as�consent�that�is�uninformed�or�coerced�is�not�valid.

One�fairly�well�known�instance�of�this�is�the�Verne�Troyer�Sex�Tape�[1].

In�conclusion�snuff�films�should�not�be�distributed�because�those�invooved�are�not�able�to�givenlawful�consent.

[1]�en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verne_Troyer?wasRedirected=true
Debate Round No. 1
joshpleco23

Pro

I agree that the making of snuff films for the purpose of entertainment should definitely be illegal. Murder is wrong, and if the police find the videotape before it is "distributed", then it should probably be kept as evidence to find the perks. However, when snuff films do get distributed, then I think it shouldn't be a crime own or possess one.

Before I continue, I would like to point out that the underworld industry of the snuff film market is considered by many to be an urban legend. The films I am about to mention, were not made for profit or entertainment, therefore they do not classify as a snuff film, however they feature the same content, which is death. The assassination of John F. Kennedy has been shown on many documentaries surrounding that particular subject. Most people aren't offended by seeing the footage on television, even though is shows the president being shot. An even more vivid example would be the public suicide of R. Budd Dwyer, who stuck the barrel of a .357 S&W Magnum in his mouth and pulled the trigger. WPVI in Philadelphia showed the full video, as did WPXI. Both films were also shown without the consent of the people who perished in them, so it would be hypocritical to let these films be legally shown and not snuff films.

"My opponent may try and argue that the person may give consent for the video to be released before the actual filming of the film occurs. This is not legally valid consent as consent that is uninformed or coerced is not valid."

My opponent makes a pretty good point, but there is also the possibility that the people who gave consent new they were going to die. Take for example the case of Armin Meiwes, who found another man through the Internet who agreed to be "slaughtered and then consumed", as part of a sexual fetish. The event was taped, but I'm not sure if it was intended to be distributed or not. And again, this debate isn't about the making of a snuff film, but it's distribution and the people who possess such videos.

There have been a few videos that have been made for the purpose of some kind of profit which include: The videotapes that killers Charles Ng and Leonard Lake took (which are considered by many to be snuff films), footage of the Maguindanao massacre (which has been found in pirated DVD vendors), some famous hostage videos created by terrorist organizations in order to speak there demands (Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Paul Johnson to name a few), and of course the video made by the The Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs (which has also circulated around the Internet).

SOURCES:http://www.archives.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Korashk

Con

I thank my opponent for his response. Words in all caps are meant to emphasized.

Clarifications:
I think that it would be prudent to clarify what a snuff film is.

Snuff Film - A snuff film or snuff movie is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual death or murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation. Though many films featuring real deaths exist, such for-profit films are generally regarded as an urban legend.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~

///Before I continue, I would like to point out that the underworld industry of the snuff film market is considered by many to be an urban legend. The films I am about to mention, were not made for profit or entertainment, therefore they do not classify as a snuff film, however they feature the same content, which is death. The assassination of John F. Kennedy has been shown on many documentaries surrounding that particular subject. Most people aren't offended by seeing the footage on television, even though is shows the president being shot. An even more vivid example would be the public suicide of R. Budd Dwyer, who stuck the barrel of a .357 S&W Magnum in his mouth and pulled the trigger. WPVI in Philadelphia showed the full video, as did WPXI. Both films were also shown without the consent of the people who perished in them, so it would be hypocritical to let these films be legally shown and not snuff films.///

I would say that a video that contains real death does not make that video a snuff film. If it did Every war documentary with battlefield footage would be considered a snuff film. My opponent's examples do not have many of the elements of a snuff film including being made for profit and entertainment. There's also the fact that these two incidents happened in PUBLIC. This fact brings up the issue of implied consent [2] which is legally defined as consent that is inferred from signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence. While these individuals may not have given explicit consent, their consent to be filmed was implied by the fact that they were in public. This is the same consent that is used by news organizations to show footage.
~

///My opponent makes a pretty good point, but there is also the possibility that the people who gave consent new they were going to die. Take for example the case of Armin Meiwes, who found another man through the Internet who agreed to be "slaughtered and then consumed", as part of a sexual fetish. The event was taped, but I'm not sure if it was intended to be distributed or not. And again, this debate isn't about the making of a snuff film, but it's distribution and the people who possess such videos.///

The issue with this occurrence is that since Armin's victim is dead, there is no way to determine whether or not he was legally able to give consent to the actions that he gave consent to. It is also a separate matter that criminal activity perpetrated where all individuals are consenting is still illegal [3].
~

I look forward to my opponent's response.

[1] http://www.wikipedia.org... I apologize for not providing a real link in round one.
[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
joshpleco23

Pro

joshpleco23 forfeited this round.
Korashk

Con

I extend my arguments and strogly urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
joshpleco23KorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04